It's not like Morgan came into the setup as the complete article. I really don't see the problem with an associate player wanting to develop and further his career as much as possible. I actually really hope he won't be the last. I know it's a loss for Irish cricket, but it's probably also a gain in terms of youngsters, it gives the very best young Irish players a definite career path that may well keep them in the game.

But at what cost? Ireland permanently remaining an Associate? In other words individuals over country?

As BoyBrumby said, it's dubious to say the least.

Or remove Ireland from the Associates list and instead make them a part of county cricket. Because IIRC, Ireland gets some money from ICC for being an Associate. What's the use if such money is used to manufacture players for a particular country? Surely there is nothing to suggest that future Morgans won't opt to play for England.

But at what cost? Ireland permanently remaining an Associate? In other words individuals over country?

As BoyBrumby said, it's dubious to say the least.

Or remove Ireland from the Associates list and instead make them a part of county cricket. Because IIRC, Ireland gets some money from ICC for being an Associate. What's the use if such money is used to manufacture players for a particular country? Surely there is nothing to suggest that future Morgans won't opt to play for England.

It's a free world, man. No way should anyone be restricted from moving countries to further their careers just because it's a sport and the fans will be upset. It's a job, after all and if someone is able to pay better and attract stronger talent, as in any other job, that's business (and life).

I mean, forget career aspirations, what if Morgan just feels like living in England or Australia over Ireland? What if he reckons the schools are better for his kids or the chicks are hotter? If he then qualifies to play for his adopted country, so be it. Cricket's a profession like anything else.The bigger moral (and legal) crime in this instance would be restraint of trade.

I am all for players moving countries. But there should be the same gap for moving from an associate country to a test country as it is for the reverse direction. Look at nannes. He played 6 months back for Netherlands and suddenly there he is for Australia. Make the 4 year gap mandatory.

But at what cost? Ireland permanently remaining an Associate? In other words individuals over country?

As BoyBrumby said, it's dubious to say the least.

Or remove Ireland from the Associates list and instead make them a part of county cricket. Because IIRC, Ireland gets some money from ICC for being an Associate. What's the use if such money is used to manufacture players for a particular country? Surely there is nothing to suggest that future Morgans won't opt to play for England.

But how is forcing players to play for their home countries fair to the players in question? Ireland is going to be an associate team for the foreseeable future. Morgan is what 24 yrs old? He has about 12 years left in his career, Ireland probably is not going to have test status during the lifetime of his career, so why should he have to sacrifice his career for some abstract notion of developing irish cricket.

I am all for players moving countries. But there should be the same gap for moving from an associate country to a test country as it is for the reverse direction. Look at nannes. He played 6 months back for Netherlands and suddenly there he is for Australia. Make the 4 year gap mandatory.

I daresay if that rule were enforced then you'd see fewer players with full aspirations playing for the associate country to be honest.

marc71178 - President and founding member of AAAS - we don't only appreciate when he does well, but also when he's not quite so good!

It's a free world, man. No way should anyone be restricted from moving countries to further their careers just because it's a sport and the fans will be upset. It's a job, after all and if someone is able to pay better and attract stronger talent, as in any other job, that's business (and life).

I mean, forget career aspirations, what if Morgan just feels like living in England or Australia over Ireland? What if he reckons the schools are better for his kids or the chicks are hotter? If he then qualifies to play for his adopted country, so be it. Cricket's a profession like anything else.The bigger moral (and legal) crime in this instance would be restraint of trade.

TBF it's only in cricket that anyone would ever try to make a point like this. No one is suggesting stopping a player from moving to another country if he's so inclined, where he's free to get any job he likes. Letting someone change their nationality so they can play for a more successful country isn't the same thing. If it's a legal crime then football could potentially have itself a hell of a lot of court cases on its hands in the near future. Or would you suggest that the whole concept of country vs. country sport is unworkable?

Originally Posted by indiaholic

Ireland on the other hand are everything that is good and just and beautiful in this world.

It's a free world, man. No way should anyone be restricted from moving countries to further their careers just because it's a sport and the fans will be upset. It's a job, after all and if someone is able to pay better and attract stronger talent, as in any other job, that's business (and life).

I mean, forget career aspirations, what if Morgan just feels like living in England or Australia over Ireland? What if he reckons the schools are better for his kids or the chicks are hotter? If he then qualifies to play for his adopted country, so be it. Cricket's a profession like anything else.The bigger moral (and legal) crime in this instance would be restraint of trade.

Thats bad luck, thank god it isn't a "free world" as you put it, New Zealands population would explode as would Australias.